Proposal to put Reagan on $50 Bill

[Flashy]

You've got it a bit wrong Flashy. It wasn't until 1987 that Reagan finally mentioned the Aids crisis:
..."Reagan would ultimately address the issue of AIDS while president. His remarks came May 31, 1987 (near the end of his second term), at the Third International Conference on AIDS in Washington. When he spoke, 36,058 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS and 20,849 had died. The disease had spread to 113 countries, with more than 50,000 cases. "

and what took him so long?
..."A significant source of Reagan's support came from the newly identified religious right and the Moral Majority, a political-action group founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. AIDS became the tool, and gay men the target, for the politics of fear, hate and discrimination. Falwell said "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals." Reagan's communications director Pat Buchanan argued that AIDS is "nature's revenge on gay men." ...

and what would him speaking out have done?
..."How profoundly different might have been the outcome if his leadership had generated compassion rather than hostility. "In the history of the AIDS epidemic, President Reagan's legacy is one of silence," Michael Cover, former associate executive director for public affairs at Whitman-Walker Clinic, the groundbreaking AIDS health-care organization in Washington. in 2003. "It is the silence of tens of thousands who died alone and unacknowledged, stigmatized by our government under his administration." "

Reagan's AIDS Legacy / Silence equals death - SFGate

that is not true...Reagan first mentioned AIDS September 17th in 1985...in a question and answer session at the White House

Federal Support for AIDS Research
Q. Mr. President, the Nation's best-known AIDS scientist says the time has come now to boost existing research into what he called a minor moonshot program to attack this AIDS epidemic that has struck fear into the Nation's health workers and even its schoolchildren. Would you support a massive government research program against AIDS like the one that President Nixon launched against cancer?


The President. I have been supporting it for more than 4 years now. It's been one of the top priorities with us, and over the last 4 years, and including what we have in the budget for '86, it will amount to over a half a billion dollars that we have provided for research on AIDS in addition to what I'm sure other medical groups are doing. And we have $100 million in the budget this year; it'll be 126 million next year. So, this is a top priority with us. Yes, there's no question about the seriousness of this and the need to find an answer.


Q. If I could follow up, sir. The scientist who talked about this, who does work for the Government, is in the National Cancer Institute. He was referring to your program and the increase that you proposed as being not nearly enough at this stage to go forward and really attack the problem.


The President. I think with our budgetary constraints and all, it seems to me that $126 million in a single year for research has got to be something of a vital contribution.


(later in the conference, another question)


School Attendance of Children With AIDS
Q. Mr. President, returning to something that Mike [Mike Putzel, Associated Press] said, if you had younger children, would you send them to a school with a child who had AIDS?


The President. I'm glad I'm not faced with that problem today. And I can well understand the plight of the parents and how they feel about it. I also have compassion, as I think we all do, for the child that has this and doesn't know and can't have it explained to him why somehow he is now an outcast and can no longer associate with his playmates and schoolmates. On the other hand, I can understand the problem with the parents. It is true that some medical sources had said that this cannot be communicated in any way other than the ones we already know and which would not involve a child being in the school. And yet medicine has not come forth unequivocally and said, ``This we know for a fact, that it is safe.'' And until they do, I think we just have to do the best we can with this problem. I can understand both sides of it.


The President's News Conference

 

[Industrialsize]

To be honest, this discussion and research for posts is bringing up too many painful memories. I thought I was past most of the sadness of countless dear friends that I lost, but I'm not. I'm going to respectfully withdraw from this thread

 

[justasimpleguy]

flashy, I can't believe you are defending Reagan's record on this issue considering the "Moral Majority" that put him in office and its attitudes towards homosexuals. Couple abstinence-only education with a new disease that the Right proclaimed was the gay man's disease and you get disaster.

What would have happened if we had comprehensive sex education in this country and easy access to condoms and contraceptives for all citizens? Do I need to paint you a picture of how differently things would have played out?

 

[midlifebear]

regardless of the language, you are still not saying how things would have been any different for the unfortunate people who lost their lives in the early days of the epidemic...it took years to find vaccines that slow the disease and there still is no real cure for it...

whatever the scientists were in fact saying, they still had very little knowledge at all of the disease, and in fact, had no way to stop it, other than to keep working and hoping to find out more about it.

what else could truly be done from a medical standpoint?

we know things could have been done from a political, or ceremonial standpoint, by making a speech...but, if people hated Reagan, what could he have said that would have appeased you or members so affected by this?

all he could have said, which was true, was that scientists were working to find a cure.

so i am not sure what you could have want Reagan to have done. Had he offered sympathy, based on what you said above, it would be considered false by you and the community most afflicted...so what would be the point?

I am just saying, in your view of him, it was "damned if you, damned if you don't"...so considering he had no scientific skill or medical skill himself, and considering that you believe he wanted people to die of aids because they deserved it, and considering you believe that he also offered no sympathy and did not call attention to it publicly, what exactly do you want?

i understand your emotions on the topic, but basically, you are saying "here are the 3 things he could have done...and we think they are all wrong"

he could have...

1. solved the problem medically (which still hasn't been done)
2. spoke out in sympathy (which you believe would be a lie)
3. not spoke out and stayed relatively quiet (which is because you say he believed they deserved it)

do you see the point i am making?

which of those 3 options, should have been taken? one is unrealistic scientifically and medically, and the other 2 options offer nothing but scorn and do not solve the problem either.

Flashy, sugar booger, quit while you dig yourself any deeper. I'll just address the 1st of your incorrect assertions: "..it took years to find vaccines that slow the disease and there still is no real cure for it..." Currently there are not nor have there ever been "vaccines" that slow down the disease. There has only been hope. Researchers have been close, but as yet . . . alas, no cigar.

OK, I'll take on a second bit of misinformation on your part: granted, no one knew what caused the disease, but early on it was the Gay Community that took up the charge to educate everyone, not just other gay men, how not to spread the disease. Granted, a condom is not 100% perfect, but 99.9% perfect is better than refusing to educate the masses that they should use condoms. This was never done. Well, it was done, but it was organizations such as Act Up that did it until it became "trendy" and obvious that 1950s sex education wasn't going to cut it. Act Up spread the word early in the 1980's. Dr. Koop came out in support of it sometime around 1987 or 88.

We could still do a ton more by providing needle exchange programs for drug addicts and provide giant candy dishes full of free condoms at bars (both straight and gay), and the rebound of "saunas."

Reagan never supported the gays getting the word out to the rest of the world. He most certainly could have supported open and intelligent sex education, but he never did. We still have a problem with US citizens not having full access to sex education and how to prevent STDs in the USA because the christianists and other ultra right groups think it bad.

Just ask Pat Robertson.

 

[Flashy]

I sincerely doubt that.
One of the main reasons why the epidemic was allowed to grow out of control is because it was labeled as a gay man's disease. Before it was called AIDS, it was called GRID (or Gay Related Immune Deficiency). Even when it was changed to AIDS, people still categorized it with the homosexual community so it was downplayed as not being a major problem. What's even worse is that much preventive research was already done by the gay communities as early as '82. They created their own pamphlets and started spreading the awareness of safe sex back then. Again, all of it ignored because our society considered it a problem for gay men only. Even up to this day, you feel resentment from some heterosexuals about AIDS & the HIV virus. They still acquaint the acquisition of this disease as a "gay thing", and word it as such to suggest that gay people brought this problem to their doorsteps. But I digress...

Back in 1982, gay men knew that this disease wasn't just going to affect them alone. But they needed a voice, a powerful one, to help them break through the nonsense because nobody outside of the gay community was listening. The President, or any powerful heterosexual figure, would have been able to echo that fact in such a way to make others take notice. But it took not only Rock Hudson to die, but also Magic Johnson to attract the virus in order for people to really take AIDS seriously. And why is that? Because both of these people were perceived as "straight" in regular society. Only THEN did it become an important issue. Of course, many other gay men died before that... including babies who were born with it.

Hence the resentment a lot of gay & lesbian people who lived through that decade have towards Reagan and most government figures in the 80s. If you ask me, I think their grief is justified. Nobody was asking for someone to come in with a magic wand and wave the disease away. They wanted to know someone outside of their own circle recognized the problem, understood the severity and helped to spread the message.

i am not suggesting that any of the things you are saying are wrong...i cannot speak to how heteros look at gays for "causing" aids or the resentment, since i am not aware of it nor have i experienced it (since i am not confronted with that particular situation as yuou have encountered)

ultimately though, indeed, it does come to heteros simply not being all that concerned at the time because it was not considered to be as much of a threat...only when it was learned to be in the blood supply, and that you could get it from straight sex as well did it become known.

as for Magic Johnson, well, while i certainly feel badly that he got it, being as reckless as he was sexually, it certainly increased his chances...

i think that was the most visible case, but Arthur Ashe to me was much mroe prevalent since it came from a transfusion.

personally, whenever a family member had to go in to a hospital for surgery, from the time we were young, my mother or grandmother would always give blood ahead of time should it be needed (they did this even before aids, cause they were always concerned about things like that)

as i said earlier though, about spreading the message, this was not merely Reagan who was slow to acknowledge it...I do not remember any political figures doing much about it, republicans or democrats...so having so much resentment towards Reagan alone, is a bit unfair, no? Surely it is deserved, but i do not hear the same type of resentment towards others, who indeed could have been much louder.

 

[justasimpleguy]

We could go on for days about the things Reagan fucked up. The AIDS crisis is just the biggest issue to the gay community as far as I know.

I mean, "trickle-down economics." Iran-Contra. Destruction of the livelihood of American farmers. Star Wars...I could go on.

 

[StormfrontFL]

FDR deserves the honor before Reagan.

 

[midlifebear]

If they do put Reagan on the $50, it damn well better be a portrait of him taking a nap.

And I agree that FDR deserves to be on the new 'Mericuhn funny money than "Ronnie." Besides, Ronnie had his moment in the sun being on all the boxes of 20 Mule Team Borax that was sold through the 50s and 60s.

 

[Flashy]

flashy, I can't believe you are defending Reagan's record on this issue considering the "Moral Majority" that put him in office and its attitudes towards homosexuals. Couple abstinence-only education with a new disease that the Right proclaimed was the gay man's disease and you get disaster.

What would have happened if we had comprehensive sex education in this country and easy access to condoms and contraceptives for all citizens? Do I need to paint you a picture of how differently things would have played out?

nowhere am i defending Reagan's record on the issue.

I am simply saying, that, what else could he have done, send everyone a cookie?

he was not a doctor, he was not a scientist, people who disliked what he stood for, like yourself, who have just mentioned the religious right, did not like him anyway, and did not believe, so what i am asking is, what else did you want him to do?

i understand this a highly emotional issue...and as such, many are responding here emotionally...

the fact is, *NOBODY* in the government handled the situation well...and making Reagan the bad guy, because he was a reactionary, somewhat senile, dottering figurehead, is a way to put a face to all the blame that should deservedly go around.

as for your comment that
"What would have happened if we had comprehensive sex education in this country and easy access to condoms and contraceptives for all citizens? Do I need to paint you a picture of how differently things would have played out?"

do you need a picture painted to see that we have had public service announcements and all sorts of knowledge over the past 20 years and people still have unprotected sex? that they still do IV drugs? that they still drunk drive?

if people want to have sex, they should buy their *OWN* condoms...and if people do not use condoms, when they know they should, then how is it someone else's fault?

and how would contraceptives have stopped AIDS in the early 80s, pray tell?


i could give two shits about the moral majority, but the fact is, people have always done, and will always do unsafe things, sexually, or in life.

just because Reagan did not make speeches, does not change the fact that the disease was a killer, that still, to this day, with all the money and research, is still killing people.

to blame Reagan because he did not put a loving hand around a person with AIDS, when even doctors and health care professionals would not go near them in many cases, is asking for something that had no chance of happening...and it was not only Reagan.

as i said...there were *PLENTY* of people of all kinds in the USA and the world who did not know how to deal with the AIDS epidemic on many levels...just because people need a face to put along as the "bad guy", does not mean it is fair.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

So in other words, Ronnie is too controversial to be putting on the $50 bill...

 

[Zeuhl34]

I'd rather have either of the Roosevelts or James Madison replace Grant.

 

[Flashy]

Flashy, sugar booger, quit while you dig yourself any deeper. I'll just address the 1st of your incorrect assertions: "..it took years to find vaccines that slow the disease and there still is no real cure for it..." Currently there are not nor have there ever been "vaccines" that slow down the disease. There has only been hope. Researchers have been close, but as yet . . . alas, no cigar.

on the contrary MLB...i do not consider myself in deep at all. I am entitled to my opinion, and that is that no matter whatr Reagan did, it would not have made any difference to the progression of the disease...as such, what people are angry about is that he was callous and uncaring...which he was. that does not mean he could have done anything about it that would have helped.

there are treatments that slow the disease and allow people to live with some semblance of normalcy....i am sorry if vaccine was the wrong word, but there are in fact many "treatments" that allow people with HIV/AIDS to live, are there not? the point i make still stands.

there is no cure, but fortunately, there are treatments for people suffering with it, though obviously finding a cure would be wonderful.

OK, I'll take on a second bit of misinformation on your part: granted, no one knew what caused the disease, but early on it was the Gay Community that took up the charge to educate everyone, not just other gay men, how not to spread the disease. Granted, a condom is not 100% perfect, but 99.9% perfect is better than refusing to educate the masses that they should use condoms.This was never done. Well, it was done, but it was organizations such as Act Up that did it until it became "trendy" and obvious that 1950s sex education wasn't going to cut it. Act Up spread the word early in the 1980's. Dr. Koop came out in support of it sometime around 1987 or 88.

well that is your opinion...i remember in my private school, being told over and over to use a condom, no matter what...irrespective of aids alone, but also other sexually transmitted diseases.

my first condoms were given to me by my father, and myself and my cousins and my sister were all warned and educated by our families.

I also recall everyone in my school being told about condoms.

knowing to use a condom, in society in the past 30 years or so, should be as second nature as knowing when to go to the bathroom.

that is not "misinformation"...ACT UP did not teach me to use a condom. i was using condomswhen i became sexually active in around 1984...and i had not even heard of ACT UP then

We could still do a ton more by providing needle exchange programs for drug addicts and provide giant candy dishes full of free condoms at bars (both straight and gay), and the rebound of "saunas."

yes, you are talking about the idealized version of things.
i support needle exchange, but who exactly is going to provide those free condoms at bars? the bar? the government?

free condoms are well and good in theory, but if people don't have an incentive to buy a condom, they are already at risk, and if they only will protect themselves and others if it costs them nothing, i would say you have the perfect example of the type of ignorance that public campaigns do not reach no matter what.

Reagan never supported the gays getting the word out to the rest of the world.

so, Reagan was an asshole...why would he have supported the gays, who already hated him, and what responsibility did he have to supporting gays get the message out to the "rest of the world"...isn't it the responsibility of the French government to deal with Aids in france, British government in great britain, etc?

so now Reagan is at fault for the spread of global aids?

He most certainly could have supported open and intelligent sex education, but he never did.

he could have, but those were not his beliefs. So you are blaming him for having beliefs, that, rightly or wrongly (wrongly, IMO), were his, and reflected the views of many of his constituents?

i support sex education, but i understand others do not.

We still have a problem with US citizens not having full access to sex education and how to prevent STDs in the USA because the christianists and other ultra right groups think it bad.
Just ask Pat Robertson.

just because the right wing are a bunch of idiots does not in anyway excuse the lack of ability of a 14 year old to type "STD" into google and learn in 5 minutes, what people wanted taught for a semester in the mid 1980s.

i would say US citizens are far more educated on sex, than say, sub-saharan africans.

this is not the 1970s, where nobody can figure out sex without a course in it.

considering how little american kids care to learn in school anyway, frankly, i do not see how they are going to learn in a year in sex ed.

how fucking hard is it to learn these simple rules?

1. don't be too promiscuous
2. always get tested for *EVERYTHING* and insist your partners do too.
3. always use a condom when not in a monagamous relationship where you and the partner are not known to be safe.
4. don't fuck someone without testing and don't fuck someone who you found out has an STD from testing.

 

[MalakingTiti]

Fuck Ronald Reagan.

 

[Flashy]

Fuck Ronald Reagan.

but get tested first :smile:

 

[finsuptx]

It's neither here nor there if Reagan warrants his face on currency, we have bigger fish to fry. This guy doesn't want to do any heavy lifting so he clogs up the docket with this crap! ALL incumbents who were in office when this entire financial meltdown occured deserve to be tossed out on their collective asses for pittling around when they let the bankers, lawyers, and insurance companies rape the American people while crashing the economy.

I do not hold my breath for Healthcare Reform, Campaign Reform, Financial Reform, Higher Education Standards, or any decent quality of life for millions of Americans from here on out.

Put who you want on the bills, they are all going to be worthless when the economy crashes again.

 

[maxcok]

You may or may not know that legislation has been submitted to replace Ulysses S. Grant on the $50 bill with the image of former president Ronald Reagan. . . .

This effort makes as much sense as carving his face on Mt. Rushmore, and is only slightly more likely to suceed. Unfortunately, there will always be those who worship at the shrine of the Gipper. Really, who else do they have to look up to?

To be honest, this discussion and research for posts is bringing up too many painful memories. I thought I was past most of the sadness of countless dear friends that I lost, but I'm not. I'm going to respectfully withdraw from this thread

I have noted factual errors in varying degrees on both sides of this discussion. That is not the heart of the issue. The president has a 'bully pulpit'. Reagan not only refused to take a stand, he allowed his administration to sweep a devastating and terrifying epidemic under the carpet, losing years of valuable research and education efforts that could have saved lives - lives in the 100's of thousands! His pandering to Evangelicals and the 'Moral Majority' allowed prejudice to flourish and misinformation to reign while collateral damage continued unabated and in exponentially increasing horror.

Unless you were on the front lines in the struggle for education, recognition and response, unless you sacrificed your time, energy and financial resources to the struggle, unless you have marched in the streets of the nation's capital demanding action in one of the largest demonstrations in history, only to have your numbers fractionalized by the park service and virtually ignored by major media, unless you have been drug from the steps of the Supreme Court and thrown in jail, unless you have faced down huge Federal cops in their government issued pink gloves, which they wore to protect them from the 'Gay Disease', unless you have been screamed at, spat upon, assaulted and tear-gassed by hundreds of religious zealots, unless you witnessed their airplane banner flying over Pride Festivities, reading "Fags must Die", unless you have watched scores of friends waste away and die as grotesque shells of their former selves, unless you have witnessed hundreds more acquaintances - generations of the best, the most beautiful and the brightest - vanish from the landscape, week after week, year after year, unless you have held mothers in your arms trying to comfort them in their inconsolable grief, . . . . . I could go on . . . .

Unless you have done at least a few of these things, and unless you were at least of an age of understanding during those dark years, you really need to sit down and shut the fuck up. Especially you Star, your flip comments are most ignorant, most hurtful and most unwelcome. If you have a heart, now would be a good time to find it.


P.S. You too Flashy, more so than Star actually. Your obsession on this is embarrasing.
Shut the fuck up before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

 

[B_starinvestor]

We could go on for days about the things Reagan fucked up. The AIDS crisis is just the biggest issue to the gay community as far as I know.

I mean, "trickle-down economics."

Win

Iran-Contra.

No excuse - but every administration does it.

Destruction of the livelihood of American farmers

.

We can argue this.

Star Wars...I could go on.

Win. Slam Dunk.

 

[StormfrontFL]

Star how is Reagan's Star Wars plan a slam dunk win? Are you dreaming again?

 

[B_starinvestor]

Star how is Reagan's Star Wars plan a slam dunk win? Are you dreaming again?

Do you really want to get into this with me?

 

[maxcok]

We could go on for days about the things Reagan fucked up. The AIDS crisis is just the biggest issue to the gay community as far as I know.

I mean, "trickle-down economics." Iran-Contra. Destruction of the livelihood of American farmers. Star Wars...I could go on.

Not a criticism here simpleguy, but maybe a clarification in the interest of us all moving beyond pat assumptions and stereotypes:

The people I was involved with in the HIV fight covered the orientation and demographic spectrum.
My closest ally was a hetero woman who lost two hetero hemophiliac sons to AIDS. I think the phrase 'gay community' is a bit overused. It's not like there's a neighborhood association. I have always gravitated toward like-minded individuals, regardless of 'categories'.

As for myself, no doubt Reagan's inaction during the crisis was overwhelming. In the context and pattern of his administration though, it was really just typical of the entire panoply of destructive policies. And like Bush, we're still living with the aftermath.